God loves no one [Archive]

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:08 PM

The common way out of this conundrum is to argue that the morality of God is far surpassing our own and therefore sending a large number of people, arguable larger than the saved, to an eternal punishment is the correct decision because of factors and logic that we cannot comprehend. Even if it pains God to do so it is something that must be done, that is the logic behind it. Of course if that is true than the saved must automatically be considered, by God and themselves, to be superior to the unsaved as we have not only been punished for reasons we can't understand but also that we have apparently been determined to be irredeemable as well. And for that matter it's a nice unfalsfiable statement with absolutely no ability to determine truth, meaning you can easily counter by claiming that God must hate us and it is just as valid a statement.

Of course this goes into the argument of whether or not it is justified to punish individuals for reasons they can't comprehend for a duration we cannot comprehend. In past arguments I've stated that Pascal's Wager essentially requires people to take a bet based on parameters they don't understand. Akin to being asked to bett X amount of money of Y value with no clear way of actually getting out of the bet or finding out what it is you are betting on until after the bet is made. It shrieks dishonesty in your face until your ear drums explode, but for some reason people consider that a mark of a loving God. IMO, there is no way out of supposing that your God is a loving one if he sentences people to unimaginable torments for unimaginable periods of time.

Of course some of the apologetics coming out of the woodworks are stating that we are akin to computer programs to God. In which case God doesn't love us as children he loves us as a painter loves his painting. He appreciates the work went into it and is proud of it but will gladly sell said painting for more drug money. I'm kind of waiting until God sells us to the cosmic art dealer for more LSD.

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 09:10 PM

I'm not sure how many of us could be classified as "works of art"?

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:11 PM

I'd be a Picasso.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:12 PM

I'm not sure how many of us could be classified as "works of art"?

Kinda lends credence to Douglas Gasking' ontological argument doesn't it? By which I mean God not existing...or maybe it does it harm because we aren't marvelous achievements? Or maybe us being flawed achievements is because of an impaired non-existent creator? I don't think his argument was supposed to make sense anyways. :D

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 09:14 PM

Eve was his best creation. (yes I'm biased)

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:15 PM

Eve was his best creation. (yes I'm biased)

Yeah but I tend to go for Adam too. :shy:

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 09:17 PM

Eve was supposed to be his final creation. So I guess that was the best he gould do.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:18 PM

Eve was supposed to be his final creation. So I guess that was the best he gould do.

Yes, perfect beings who perfectly betrayed his trust in their flaws.

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:18 PM

Eve was his best creation. (yes I'm biased)

Not Lilith?

Lilith was hotter.

{warning: Boobies}

http://www.halexandria.org/images/Lilith.gif

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 09:20 PM

I have my own version of Eve but I don't think I can post it here (boobies ++)

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:20 PM

Not Lilith?

Lilith was hotter.

{warning: Boobies}

http://www.halexandria.org/images/Lilith.gif

And she was into being on top and kinky three, four, or moresomes with demons. Can't go wrong with that.

ETA:

I have my own version of Eve but I don't think I can post it here (boobies ++)

Lonewulf beat you to it...well as far as Lilith is concerned.

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 09:23 PM

The image I have is on my computer so I can't post a link. My Eve is not like the standard icon you see in reglious art.

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:23 PM

Lilith seduces Eve, and has a kinky threesome with Adam.

Discuss.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:23 PM

The image I have is on my computer so I can't post a link. My Eve is not like the standard icon you see in reglious art.

Photobucket is your friend

Achán hiNidráne

5th May 2009, 09:24 PM

Isn't there supposed to be a religion that believes God exists but he/she/it is evil?

Well, that brings up an interesting point: The notion of a omnibenevolent deity flies in the face of human suffering--i.e. "The Problem of Evil." How can an all-powerful and loving god allow any suffering to exist in the universe? On the other hand, an omnimalevolent deity would have the opposite problem: The Problem of Good. How can an all-powerful and evil god allow any happiness to exist in the universe?

Or am I just 'shrooming here?

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:24 PM

The image I have is on my computer so I can't post a link. My Eve is not like the standard icon you see in reglious art.

My e-mail is demonwulf@gmail.com

I'm just saying.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:24 PM

Lilith seduces Eve, and has a kinky threesome with Adam.

Discuss.

Not likely...Adam was a pansy. Wouldn't let Lilith be on top and Eve had to make the logical jump to go after the apple. He was a frakkin' choir boy.

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:25 PM

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:26 PM

Not likely...Adam was a pansy. Wouldn't let Lilith be on top and Eve had to make the logical jump to go after the apple. He was a frakkin' choir boy.

Meh, that just means we have to take Adam out of the picture.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:26 PM

Well, that brings up an interesting point: The notion of a omnibenevolent deity flies in the face of human suffering--i.e. "The Problem of Evil." How can an all-powerful and loving god allow any suffering to exist? On the other hand, an omnimalevolent deity would have the opposite problem: The Problem of Good. How can an all-powerful and evil god allow any happiness to exist in the universe?

Or am I just 'shrooming here?

You can argue that an evil God would allow joy just to snuff it out later. Loved ones for instance, inevitably they will die usually leaving you behind. The more time you are given with them the more painful the ending can be. No, I don't think an omnimalevolent deity runs into nearly as many problems.

My e-mail is demonwulf@gmail.com

I'm just saying.

And that's going straight on the spam list I'm compiling for my evil marketing overlords.

ETA:

Meh, that just means we have to take Adam out of the picture.

You know who enjoys a good threesome with biblical figures? Satan.

Achán hiNidráne

5th May 2009, 09:27 PM

Lilith seduces Eve, and has a kinky threesome with Adam.

Discuss.

Mmmmmmm... talk is cheap.

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:28 PM

Anyone got a time machine?

Achán hiNidráne

5th May 2009, 09:30 PM

You can argue that an evil God would allow joy just to snuff it out later. Loved ones for instance, inevitably they will die usually leaving you behind. The more time you are given with them the more painful the ending can be. No, I don't think an omnimalevolent deity runs into nearly as many problems.

But can't you say the same thing about a good god allowing evil? Allowing evil gives us mere mortals something to rally against and Good God can destroy it and justify it's existence and worship?

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:30 PM

Anyone got a time machine?

I know a guy who does (http://thegrumpyowl.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/doctor_who___david_tennant_by_jennicat5.jpg).

ETA:

But can't you say the same thing about a good god allowing evil? Allowing evil gives us mere mortals something to rally against and Good God can destroy it and justify it's existence and worship?

You can, but that's evil in reality. A good being, by which I would extend the virtue of selflessness, would not require the suffering of others to justify itself or its worship.

Achán hiNidráne

5th May 2009, 09:31 PM

Anyone got a time machine?

You fire up the flux capacitor. I'll get the camcorder.

Achán hiNidráne

5th May 2009, 09:34 PM

I know a guy who does (http://thegrumpyowl.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/doctor_who___david_tennant_by_jennicat5.jpg).

That's funny, I know another guy (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/Crossbow/Captains%20Jack/Jackagain.jpg)who is extremely enthusiastic about the whole project.

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:35 PM

But can't you say the same thing about a good god allowing evil? Allowing evil gives us mere mortals something to rally against and Good God can destroy it and justify it's existence and worship?

Everyone dies, and very few people enjoy it.

I'd say that evil > good in the world.

Ron_Tomkins

5th May 2009, 09:36 PM

God loves no one

On the other hand, you can trust Dwayne Hoover

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-QDfhkpieY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-QDfhkpieY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

quarky

5th May 2009, 09:49 PM

Devil's advocate moment:

1. God could exist, and be a dick.
2. The eternal damnation thing could be a human construct that the dick-god doesn't take part in.
3. Even if God did try to communicate with 'the people' through bad books, like the Holy Bible, et.al., he would be limited to language and metaphors that are comprehensible to the people at their present state of sophistication.

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 09:56 PM

Kthulhut Fhtagn

5th May 2009, 09:58 PM

Why would God create people he couldn't communicate with?

Unless he didn't create them.

Lonewulf

5th May 2009, 09:59 PM

Devil's advocate moment:

1. God could exist, and be a dick.

Already brought up, and I handled this already. Either God doesn't exist, or He does exist and loves no one. "Being a dick" pretty much means that, as much as an abusive parent is a "dick".

2. The eternal damnation thing could be a human construct that the dick-god doesn't take part in.If you read the OP, I've already accepted these two.

3. Even if God did try to communicate with 'the people' through bad books, like the Holy Bible, et.al., he would be limited to language and metaphors that are comprehensible to the people at their present state of sophistication.

Which makes God so impotent, he can't even lay down commands clearly. He would be beat out by the Code of Hammurabi. Pathetic. Someone needs to replace that guy's position; even /I/ can do better than that moronic incompetent.

MontagK505

5th May 2009, 10:00 PM

Unless he didn't create them.

Perhaps people were created by Satan (like flies)

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 12:03 AM

Which makes God so impotent, he can't even lay down commands clearly. He would be beat out by the Code of Hammurabi. Pathetic. Someone needs to replace that guy's position; even /I/ can do better than that moronic incompetent.

First Church of Lonewulf anyone?

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:08 AM

First Church of Lonewulf anyone?

The Church of the Golden Eye is taking new volunteers.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 12:10 AM

Brosnan fan?

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:11 AM

Naw. It's been around for several millenia before James Bond.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 12:14 AM

I didn't know that was possible. :D

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:15 AM

It involves time travel, a pineapple, and... I'd rather not talk about it.

Just... don't look for fossilized remains of any British spy's remains.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 12:21 AM

It involves time travel, a pineapple, and... I'd rather not talk about it.

Just... don't look for fossilized remains of any British spy's remains.

I think I have a rough idea of what your Leviticus would be now.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:24 AM

I should get to writing a Holy Book, shouldn't I?

Hmm... this might prove to be an intriguing project.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 12:31 AM

I wrote one in high school for fun, now known amongst my friends as the Book of Dust.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:35 AM

In the Beginning, there was the Big Bang...

...And then came the False Gods, upon the minds of the believers...

...But then, lying in front of the Earth the whole time, was the Golden Eye of the Wulf, that breathed life into crops, staved off the night, and took the world out of shadow through its everlasting light.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 12:48 AM

Very poetic, I just started with a bunch of thou shalts and immature ranting in mine.

"Thou shalt makest love with thy finest available booty, and mark ye should that booty verily do.

Thou shalt remember the holy drinketh hours and it is five o'clock, no later and no earlier. Five shall be the hour thou shalt drinketh at, and the number of the drinking shalt be five. Six shalt thou not drink, neither drink thou at four, excepting that thou then proceedeth to five. Seven is right out. Once the number five, being the fifth number, be reached, then drinkest thou thy Holy Booze of Thy Choosing down thy mouth hole, which being delicious in my sight, shall enjoy it. And, ye, shalt though always remember it is five o'clock somewhere"

I was bored at 17. >.>

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:49 AM

Who isn't?

quarky

6th May 2009, 06:07 AM

If we extrapolate on the world's most powerful people, its an easy analogy for understanding how God could fall short of our expectations.

Its curious that many atheists seem to be angry with God.

Personally, I hate ghosts.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 06:24 AM

If we extrapolate on the world's most powerful people, its an easy analogy for understanding how God could fall short of our expectations. Only if we accept that God is fallible and has as weak a will as a mortal.

Its curious that many atheists seem to be angry with God.This is actually a misunderstanding, as I honestly don't believe in God at all. I'm angry with Christian views of God, because they put forth an unjust God, and demand that we act servile to Him without any evidence for His existence. They also act like their God is a great wonderful being even in spite of all the evidence against it (in their book and in reality), given the presumptions in their arguments. It makes me angry that some people actually posit this as a "good" idea, and they tell me that I should respect this idea and hold their God in the highest regard.

If we were talking Greek gods, I'd still find them unjust, but at least they don't act pretentious about being "perfect". They're more powerful than humans and they're childish about it, but damnit, they don't pretend to be otherwise.

Safe-Keeper

6th May 2009, 06:57 AM

Its curious that many atheists seem to be angry with God.Same reason I frequently get pissed at Jack Bauer, Dolores Umbridge, and other creatures of fiction. Because they're, well, evil.

quarky

6th May 2009, 06:59 AM

Have you tried Ganeesh?

Gods were a lot more fun before they became one. Ultimate power corrupts.

Belz...

6th May 2009, 07:10 AM

Naw. It's been around for several millenia before James Bond.

There is no such thing as "before" James Bond.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 07:13 AM

There is no such thing as "before" James Bond.

We went over this. Time travel... pineapple...

I Ratant

6th May 2009, 08:10 AM

I'm not sure how many of us could be classified as "works of art"?
.
I'm a work of Paul and Alma.

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 09:20 AM

Yes, this is ignoring the whole "God doesn't exist" thing. So sue me. Also, Deists need not apply (nor anyone that does not believe in Hell or any kind of punishment in the afterlife).

God doesn't love anyone. Not me, not you, no human on planet Earth.

I use the same logic as I would, in saying that a father that abuses his children if they don't make a decision that would make them miserable, doesn't love his children.

There's no good logical argument against this. The only way to sidestep it is to either refuse to believe that God exists, or refuse to believe in any kind of divine-based punishment in the afterlife.

Personally, I believe that there are 5 evil gods, and 2 good ones. The bad ones outnumber the good ones, this is why there is so much evil of the world. The names of the good ones are Jerost and Vapos, and the bad ones are Hiija, Jilk, Samasa, Niva, and Yolt.

No god is omnipotent, but all are omniscient. Vapos is the loving god, he loves everyone. Jerost loves only those who worship him or Vapos.

Hija, Jilk and Samasa, do not really hate humanity; they just dislike it. Niva hates everyone; Yolt hates only those that worship Jerost and Vapos.

Heaven was of course created by the good gods; hell by the bad ones. Whether a person goes to hell or heaven is not based on good deeds at all, but on luck. It all depends on who comes for his soul first -> a good god, or a bad one. Those who worship Jerost have a slightly better chance than the others, since BOTH Jerost and Vapos cares for them, for the others only Vapos will try to come. (Only me and some of my close friends believe in Vapos, so it is us who have the better chance ).

Occasionally, Jerost or Vapos catch someone from hell, and take him from heaven. This is good news, since the bad gods can't do the opposite.

IT IS UNKOWN how the world will end. Maybe the good gods will win, and the world will become a much better place; maybe the bad gods will win, which I sincerely hope will not happen. We cannot do much to help... We are powerless in the god struggles.

For more information, and donations go to

http://www.geocities.com/onetruereligion/

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 09:33 AM

------

If you ask me what is the evidence - I will say - well of course, none! It is a matter of faith, entirely. I do not force this belief on others, this is a very liberal faith. You may criticize it, say that it is ********, I don't mind.

And if you ask "Well, other people have faith too?" - Sure they do, but my faith is valid because I believe by faith that only my faith is valid.

And if you tell me - "Well, that is circular logic" - Aha! It would almost be a good argument... But I have the perfect response. I had a revelation from Jerost, and he told me that circular proofs are OK when proving this religion. So I have no problem with circular logic. (This religion shouldn't be proved via ad hominems, and ad populum, and ex nihilo logical fallacies ; but circular logic, begging the answer, and post hoc ergo propter hoc can be used according to him, so he said).

For more information, and donations go to

http://www.geocities.com/onetruereligion/

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 09:38 AM

Yes, this is ignoring the whole "God doesn't exist" thing. So sue me. Also, Deists need not apply (nor anyone that does not believe in Hell or any kind of punishment in the afterlife).

God doesn't love anyone. Not me, not you, no human on planet Earth.

I use the same logic as I would, in saying that a father that abuses his children if they don't make a decision that would make them miserable, doesn't love his children.

There's no good logical argument against this. The only way to sidestep it is to either refuse to believe that God exists, or refuse to believe in any kind of divine-based punishment in the afterlife.

Not really, taking your parent metaphor, there are many punishments that from the child's limited perspective would seem cruel, but which are in the child's interest.

How many children think that grounding is an act of wanton power-mad cruelty?

If punishment after death were temporary, as many faiths believe, it could equate to those punishments given to children for their own good. The fact that they don't see the use of it doesn't make it abuse.

If punishment after death is eternal, as some Christians claim, it could be viewed in the same way as incarceration. If all the child-rapists and murderers were in heaven, it wouldn't be a pleasant place for the more well behaved folks there.

There is a description I once heard where hell is a place where there is a sumptuous feast, but no one can eat because their forks are so long they can't get an angle to reach their mouths. In heaven it is exactly the same, but people feed each other.

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 09:57 AM

There is a description I once heard where hell is a place where there is a sumptuous feast, but no one can eat because their forks are so long they can't get an angle to reach their mouths. In heaven it is exactly the same, but people feed each other.

Do you really think it is true?

If hell would be something like this, even if people would be unwilling to feed one another, I am sure that there would be a bully that would _force_ people into feeding him. And if not a bully, then some demagogue that would convince the others that the important thing to do in hell is to feed HIM.

Do you really think that heaven is exactly the same - forks are so long, they cannot get an angle to reach their mouths? It sounds rather a ridiculous place, if so... I imagine all those people day after day feeding one another... LOL.

I guess that in a muslim world, the penises of the muslims cannot penetrate the virgins without help from another person. (Again, an angle problem, or something like that). Only another person could help, but he doesn't want to. In the muslim heaven, the people help each other to penetrate...

Not really, taking your parent metaphor, there are many punishments that from the child's limited perspective would seem cruel, but which are in the child's interest.

True. But there are also many deeds that fathers who commit sexual abuse sometimes do, and they explain to the child that it is a good thing... So which one is it?

All you did is explained how it COULD be true that a good god would allow for the holocoust to happen. The explanation : maybe we don't know something.

Great explanation, isn't it? If you were a child, and if you would be grounded, would you be given an explanation? Yes. A parent should always explain to the child why he punishes him. So where is the detailed explanation?

Besides, you have not _proved_ that there is a good explanation for it. You said that god is a "daddy", and we are "children", so we don't know for sure. Ok. I agree. But not knowing for sure doesn't mean we can't use our judgement. Given all the evidence we have (holocoust), it is much more probable that there is no one god that is omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. You say " Well... Maybe there is, and it's all for our good... ". Ok. Maybe. But not according to what common sense tells us.

Have you being in Auschwitz? Do you really think that Auschwitz is a good analogy to being grounded??????????

Your religion is cruel. My religion offers a far better explanation of the evil in the world. See above .

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 10:01 AM

Do you really think it is true?

No, I'm an atheist. I'm responding to the OP's assertion that a loving god is logically inconsistent with punishment.

TheAnachronism

6th May 2009, 10:05 AM

------

If you ask me (as usually is asked here, for some reason), what is the evidence - I will say - well of course, none! It is a matter of faith, entirely. I do not force this belief on others, this is a very liberal faith. You may criticize it, say that it is ********, I don't mind.

And if you ask "Well, other people have faith too?" - Sure they do, but my faith is valid because I believe by faith that only my faith is valid.

And if you tell me - "Well, that is circular logic" - Aha! It would almost be a good argument... But I have the perfect response. I had a revelation from Jerost, and he told me that circular proofs are OK when proving this religion. So I have no problem with circular logic. (This religion shouldn't be proved via ad hominems, and ad populum, and ex nihilo logical fallacies ; but circular logic, begging the answer, and post hoc ergo propter hoc can be used according to him, so he said).

How might we, who have not obtained this blessed revelation, distinguish it from human vulnerabilities known to exist (for example, auditory and visual hallucinations present in schizophrenia, or delusions present in schizoaffective disorder)? You hint that criticisms from others will have no effect on you, yet I can imagine that being institutionalized for a disease that you profess that you don't have would have a profound effect.*

Not only that, but it would seem that one would, and probably should, begin to question their own subjective experiences if they are able to realize (1) that subjective experiences are prone to delusions and outright untruths and (2) their subjective experience differs substantially from the vast majority of others, so much so as to be characteristic of a known disease which effects subjective experience.

*I have not followed all of your postings, so it is my assumption that you are merely donning these beliefs as a sort of Devil's advocate, and I'm certainly not assuming you have schizophrenia or any other sort of mental problem.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 10:07 AM

I use the same logic as I would, in saying that a father that abuses his children if they don't make a decision that would make them miserable, doesn't love his children.

There's no good logical argument against this. The only way to sidestep it is to either refuse to believe that God exists, or refuse to believe in any kind of divine-based punishment in the afterlife.

Do you think parents should never punish their children? Or only use appropriate punishment for their actions?

Added: Didn't see Cavemonster's post. I'd like to hear your responses Lonewulf.

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 10:07 AM

How might we, who have not obtained this blessed revelation, distinguish it from human vulnerabilities known to exist (for example, auditory and visual hallucinations present in schizophrenia, or delusions present in schizoaffective disorder)? You hint that criticisms from others will have no effect on you, yet I can imagine that being institutionalized for a disease that you profess that you don't have would have a profound effect.*

Not only that, but it would seem that one would, and probably should, begin to question their own subjective experiences if they are able to realize (1) that subjective experiences are prone to delusions and outright untruths and (2) their subjective experience differs substantially from the vast majority of others, so much so as to be characteristic of a known disease which effects subjective experience.

*I have not followed all of your postings, so it is my assumption that you are merely donning these beliefs as a sort of Devil's advocate, and I'm certainly not assuming you have schizophrenia or any other sort of mental problem.

Assuming I might have schizophrenia is offensive. Many religious people think they are talking to god, are they all schizophrenic??? It's offensive towards them as well.

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 10:10 AM

Do you think parents should never punish their children? Or only use appropriate punishment for their actions?

Don't you think that parents should only use appropriate punishment for their actions?

I guess that you meant to say that the holocoust for example, was an appropriate punishment?

Can you tell what was it a punishment for? Or did our parent allow the killing of 6,000,00 people without explaining his children what it was for, and why was the punishment appropriate? Perhaps you can tell what was it for, and why was it needed?

Do you think that there are no sadistic parents? So how do you know god isn't sadistic?

Just visit http://www.geocities.com/onetruereligion/ and see post #62 , #59 in this thread.

TheAnachronism

6th May 2009, 10:10 AM

Assuming I might have schizophrenia is offensive. Many religious people think they are talking to god, are they all schizophrenic??? It's offensive towards them as well.

Yep, I'm offensive and I love it :rolleyes:

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 10:16 AM

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 10:18 AM

Don't you think that parents should only use appropriate punishment for their actions?

I guess that you meant to say that the holocoust for example, was an appropriate punishment?

Can you tell what was it a punishment for? Or did our parent allow the killing of 6,000,00 people without explaining his children what it was for, and why was the punishment appropriate? Perhaps you can tell what was it for, and why was it needed?

Do you think that there are no sadistic parents? So how do you know god isn't sadistic?

Just visit http://www.geocities.com/onetruereligion/ and see post #62 , #59 in this thread.

Sorry - you lost me at hello.

It might be a bit more coherent discussion if you stick with the OP about punishment in the afterlife.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 10:20 AM

Not really, taking your parent metaphor, there are many punishments that from the child's limited perspective would seem cruel, but which are in the child's interest.

How many children think that grounding is an act of wanton power-mad cruelty?

How many children think that being beaten to a bloody pulp or being sexually abused isn't power-mad cruelty, and actually thinks it might actually be normal? Hell or long periods of torture in the afterlife make no more sense than torturing someone in this one -- especially when those actions are justified by lack of experience, education, or simply being exposed to "the wrong ideas".

If punishment after death were temporary, as many faiths believe, it could equate to those punishments given to children for their own good.If that punishment is "you didn't serve me", then sorry, but I can't accept that. My reason won't allow me to.

If a deity were loving, then they could accept me even if I didn't serve them and do exactly what they wanted me to. Christianity almost always demands servitude to God, or to be servile to His Son. There are very few exceptions amongst the denominations.

If a father abuses his son because the son doesn't become a lawyer like the father wants him to, that is not love, nor will it ever be. No amount of mental gymnastics would defend this.

The fact that they don't see the use of it doesn't make it abuse.Except that a father can explain why he punishes, because there is always a reason behind that abuse. When you ground a child, the reason for it is actually rather obvious, no matter what the child sees. One can use reason and rationality to understand the punishment. If such a reason exists outside of reason and rationality, then it is punishment without a reason, and is, by definition, abuse.

If punishment after death is eternal, as some Christians claim, it could be viewed in the same way as incarceration. If all the child-rapists and murderers were in heaven, it wouldn't be a pleasant place for the more well behaved folks there.This flies in the face of what sin actually means in the Christian context. "Raping children" and "murdering people" are only a few of the many sins.

And even then, desire to rape children comes from a misfiring in the brain, a biological process that one is born with or develops over one's natural life; it has a material cause, that would disappear after one has died. A desire to murder is based on earthly desires. If one were to go to a spiritual afterlife, they would leave behind that earthly existence, adopt a new one, and then punishing them for actions in that material world to "take them away from other spirits" would be that much more arbitrary.

To judge one harshly for their actions in the material world is not a sign of a higher mind, but is the sign of one that thinks only in the material.

There is a description I once heard where hell is a place where there is a sumptuous feast, but no one can eat because their forks are so long they can't get an angle to reach their mouths. In heaven it is exactly the same, but people feed each other.

lolwut?

This suggests that we make our own hells, and not that we are divinely punished. As in, we punish ourselves, and no deity necessarily be present. That would make this lie outside of my hypothetical musings, as I'm talking directly about punishment in the afterlife, or the existence of evil (natural and mortal) in the real one.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 10:28 AM

Not really, taking your parent metaphor, there are many punishments that from the child's limited perspective would seem cruel, but which are in the child's interest.

How many children think that grounding is an act of wanton power-mad cruelty?

How many are given an eternal sentence of burning forever? That is an important differance to note, especially worth noting that we are not children. And even then many parents attempt to explain to their child what they did wrong and why they are being punished for it. God has made no such attempt at explanation thus far, comes with being nonexistant I imagine.

Of course the inverse of this would be a parent who really is punishing their child as an act of wanton power-mad cruelty and convinced their child that the abuse is for their own good and that they need said abuse. I think that about sums fundamentalist Christianity/Islam/Judaism.

Kind of pointless to argue the "well we just don't understand it" line of reasoning. It may be the case and we don't understand but since that we don't understand we cannot determine neither truth nor knowledge from the statement and it is equally valid when considering other unfalsifiable statements ie "we do understand but you're merely complicating the issue". Until the parameters are clearly defined and understood we'll never be able to argue the point. But I suppose if we understood in the first place we wouldn't need to argue that we don't understand now would we?

If punishment after death were temporary, as many faiths believe, it could equate to those punishments given to children for their own good. The fact that they don't see the use of it doesn't make it abuse.

Certainly, so long as the punishment fit the crime. Which means that there should be differant punishments given for gluttons, liars, rapists, etc. The blanket punishment of Christianity conists of burning forever and doesn't really address any sin.

If punishment after death is eternal, as some Christians claim, it could be viewed in the same way as incarceration. If all the child-rapists and murderers were in heaven, it wouldn't be a pleasant place for the more well behaved folks there.

It could, if we had a crime that deserved an eternal sentence. People are certainly more capable of causing great amounts of harm but are they capable of causing enough harm to deserve an eternal sentence? Think about it for a moment, the most absolutely horrible crimes in history committed by the worst men. Can you honestly say that, if punished in the afterlife, there could never be a time in which they could be forgiven and redeemed of their misdeeds?

There is a description I once heard where hell is a place where there is a sumptuous feast, but no one can eat because their forks are so long they can't get an angle to reach their mouths. In heaven it is exactly the same, but people feed each other.

And the intelligent people who figure out they can pull the food off with their hands or hold the fork underneeth the points and bite the food off will be going where? ;)

Do you think parents should never punish their children? Or only use appropriate punishment for their actions?

Added: Didn't see Cavemonster's post. I'd like to hear your responses Lonewulf.

Should parents punish there children? Yes. But you've kind of asked the same question twice, otherwise you're asking if we should use inappropriate punishment for crimes in the first question.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 10:36 AM

Do you think parents should never punish their children? Or only use appropriate punishment for their actions?

Appropriate punishment for the action.

The thing is:

A father should not punish wantonly. The child should be let known what they are doing wrong.

Say there's a barn. The father doesn't want the child to enter the barn, because it's dangerous.

Say the child is not warned that he cannot go into the barn, goes into the barn, father takes him and beats him, then throws him in the cellar to punish him. Or hell, the father berates the kid, spanks him, and then lets him go. Both punishments are wrong, because the child was not warned not to go into the barn, so how was he supposed to know?

Now, say the kid was warned directly by the father. "Don't go into the barn!"

The kid asks why, and the father says "Because I said so! You wouldn't understand!"

Is this justifiable? Why can the father not say, "Because it's dangerous, there are rusty nails and loose boards lying around." At least here, the kid knows why to avoid them -- and if he breaks the rules anyways, at the very least, he can avoid harm to himself.

But in this case, punishing the child for going into the barn makes sense.

But that is not what any deity in any religion do. Instead, they rely on "prophets", and not only that, there's always one prophet amongst thousands of others, many proclaiming contradictory or downright diametrically opposed things.

To keep the analogy, this is the father telling one uncle to warn the child not to go into the barn. But there are three uncles and an aunt. The aunt tells him to go into the barn to feed the horses. One uncle says he can only go into the barn on Sunday. One uncle says that he can go anytime he wants and do anything. The last uncle warns him to not do so at all.

Religion tells us that, following the advice of that last uncle should bring him rewards, anyone else punishment. But it's up to the kid to decide. And, after listening and coming to a rational conclusion, he goes with the Aunt, because the horses need feeding, and he wants to be of help around the house -- but, even though his intentions were pure, he still gets punished.

Now, this would make sense if the father was not able to (didn't have the power to) warn the child. It would also imply that he was not able to foresee that there would be the other two uncles and the aunt to confuse the boy. Yet, it would also assume that he also was unaware of this later, or decided to punish the boy anyways, which makes his punishment based in ignorance or make his punishment unjust.

But these are deities we're talking about; they're Above humans. Better than. Superior to. With greater powers -- in the case of God, the greatest of powers in all the universe! They have no excuses.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 10:37 AM

Should parents punish there children? Yes. But you've kind of asked the same question twice, otherwise you're asking if we should use inappropriate punishment for crimes in the first question.

I was trying to understand Lonewulf's point and trying to gauge on whether it was the idea of God punishing people or a specific way / form of punishment he was addressing.

Ron_Tomkins

6th May 2009, 10:38 AM

Its curious that many atheists seem to be angry with God.

Which Atheists are those and based on what do you affirm that they "hate" God? Most Atheists do not hate that which they do not consider to exist in the first place

JetLeg

6th May 2009, 10:38 AM

Personally, I believe that there are 5 evil gods, and 2 good ones. The bad ones outnumber the good ones, this is why there is so much evil of the world. The names of the good ones are Jerost and Vapos, and the bad ones are Hiija, Jilk, Samasa, Niva, and Yolt.

No god is omnipotent, but all are omniscient. Vapos is the loving god, he loves everyone. Jerost loves only those who worship him or Vapos.

Hija, Jilk and Samasa, do not really hate humanity; they just dislike it. Niva hates everyone; Yolt hates only those that worship Jerost and Vapos.

Heaven was of course created by the good gods; hell by the bad ones. Whether a person goes to hell or heaven is not based on good deeds at all, but on luck. It all depends on who comes for his soul first -> a good god, or a bad one. Those who worship Jerost have a slightly better chance than the others, since BOTH Jerost and Vapos cares for them, for the others only Vapos will try to come. (Only me and some of my close friends believe in Vapos, so it is us who have the better chance ).

Occasionally, Jerost or Vapos catch someone from hell, and take him from heaven. This is good news, since the bad gods can't do the opposite.

IT IS UNKOWN how the world will end. Maybe the good gods will win, and the world will become a much better place; maybe the bad gods will win, which I sincerely hope will not happen. We cannot do much to help... We are powerless in the god struggles.

For more information, and donations go to

http://www.geocities.com/onetruereligion/

Ron_Tomkins

6th May 2009, 10:42 AM

Kthulhut Fhtagn

6th May 2009, 10:46 AM

I was trying to understand Lonewulf's point and trying to gauge on whether it was the idea of God punishing people or a specific way / form of punishment he was addressing.

Ahh I see. Clarity my friend, makes all the differance in the world. ;)

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 10:50 AM

I was trying to understand Lonewulf's point and trying to gauge on whether it was the idea of God punishing people or a specific way / form of punishment he was addressing.

That's... complicated. I'm actually glad that you're asking me to clarify that, because it's a good point.

I'm criticizing both, for similar but different reasons:

For 1, the idea of hell and most conceptions I hear of punishment in the afterlife are pretty nasty. Zoroastrianism is one of the exceptions, except for the whole "one person taking on all of your sins" thing. That's not very cool.

For 2, the spiritual realm and the material realm are distinct according to religion (or else the soul would be material and die with the body), and most of what we do on the material world has material causes. Lust (which really honestly shouldn't be much of a sin, honestly, until you get into the extremes like rape, child or adult), greed, murder, etc. These are the result of thought processes in the brain, based on our experiences and our limited knowledge here on the world. Punishing us for that limited knowledge or those experiences seems no less silly than 1.

The more we understand of how our minds and brains work, the more this becomes clear. For instance, why is one sociopathic (I bring this up for sociopaths that actually do bad things)? Is it because they willingly let their souls become dark, or because of processes in the brain beyond their control? Why does it make sense to punish their soul, after they are dead, when this would free them from the very constraints they had in life? It's much like with Adam and Eve. "Hey! You now understand what right and wrong are! Congratulations, what you did was wrong, here is your punishment!"

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 10:55 AM

Thanks for the response Lonewulf.

Appropriate punishment for the action.

I agree.

A father should not punish wantonly. The child should be let known what they are doing wrong.

I absolutely agree. Otherwise the child can never grow and mature.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 10:56 AM

That was... picky of you.

I notice you ignored large amounts of my post, that clarified what I meant far more than you seem to recognize.

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 11:04 AM

How many children think that being beaten to a bloody pulp or being sexually abused isn't power-mad cruelty, and actually thinks it might actually be normal? Hell or long periods of torture in the afterlife make no more sense than torturing someone in this one -- especially when those actions are justified by lack of experience, education, or simply being exposed to "the wrong ideas".

If that punishment is "you didn't serve me", then sorry, but I can't accept that. My reason won't allow me to.

If a deity were loving, then they could accept me even if I didn't serve them and do exactly what they wanted me to. Christianity almost always demands servitude to God, or to be servile to His Son. There are very few exceptions amongst the denominations.

You've moved the goalposts. Your OP states that a loving god, is mutually exclusive with a god who punishes people in the afterlife.

Now you're talking about a loving god being mutually exclusive with certain specific punishment doctines of specific forms of Christianity. Other religions have other ideas about what those punishments consist of and what merits them. Some Jewish cultures believe that hell is a place where people are cleansed for a short period of time before being allowed into heaven, a time-out corner to think about what you've done.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 11:06 AM

For 1, the idea of hell and most conceptions I hear of punishment in the afterlife are pretty nasty. Zoroastrianism is one of the exceptions, except for the whole "one person taking on all of your sins" thing. That's not very cool.

Yeah - it's amazing how much people can extrapolate from the relatively few metaphors that are in the bible.

For 2, the spiritual realm and the material realm are distinct according to religion (or else the soul would be material and die with the body), and most of what we do on the material world has material causes. Lust (which really honestly shouldn't be much of a sin, honestly, until you get into the extremes like rape, child or adult), greed, murder, etc. These are the result of thought processes in the brain, based on our experiences and our limited knowledge here on the world. Punishing us for that limited knowledge or those experiences seems no less silly than 1.

I would have to say that assuming God can see the situation perfectly and He's actual Fair in the whole process (that is, He actually contemplates and considers all the variables involved) - the punishment should be appropriate for all those you listed taken in all the reasons you listed.

The more we understand of how our minds and brains work, the more this becomes clear. For instance, why is one sociopathic (I bring this up for sociopaths that actually do bad things)? Is it because they willingly let their souls become dark, or because of processes in the brain beyond their control? Why does it make sense to punish their soul, after they are dead, when this would free them from the very constraints they had in life? It's much like with Adam and Eve. "Hey! You now understand what right and wrong are! Congratulations, what you did was wrong, here is your punishment!"

I agree - assuming they are freed from all external and internal physical variables that caused those actions by their death all that would be left the would be what was truly their role and choice in the matter and also their self-awareness (and hopefully remorse) at what was done.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 11:07 AM

You've moved the goalposts. Your OP states that a loving god, is mutually exclusive with a god who punishes people in the afterlife.If you've read my posts in full, you'll see that I've responded to, more or less, the whole spectrum of goal posts.

Other religions have other ideas about what those punishments consist of and what merits them. Some Jewish cultures believe that hell is a place where people are cleansed for a short period of time before being allowed into heaven, a time-out corner to think about what you've done.

Which also implies, still, that God was too impotent to explain it to us here in the material world.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 11:09 AM

Yeah - it's amazing how much people can extrapolate from the relatively few metaphors that are in the bible.It's amazing what people will call "metaphor" as soon as they realize they don't agree with it.

I would have to say that assuming God can see the situation perfectly and He's actual Fair in the whole process (that is, He actually contemplates and considers all the variables involved) - the punishment should be appropriate for all those you listed taken in all the reasons you listed.A lot of assumptions to make. In fact, I would even go so far as to say, with these variables, and considering that all of our actions are ultimately the product of our material brains, that it's impossible to punish fairly.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 11:12 AM

That was... picky of you.

I notice you ignored large amounts of my post, that clarified what I meant far more than you seem to recognize.

I read your barn analogy. Didn't ignore it - but didn't know what else of a response I could add.

I suppose I could have added I think God has let us know what to do - but that's because I'm a Christian - so that would be stating the obvious.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 11:15 AM

I suppose I could have added I think God has let us know what to do - but that's because I'm a Christian - so that would be stating the obvious.

But, as I'm an Atheist, and I am as capable of reason as you are, the assumption is either:

1) I do not agree with you because I am not actually capable of reason.

2) You have access to knowledge not available to me (and can make available to me), but either choose not to or can't be bothered.

3) You have access to knowledge not available to me, that can not convince me even though I am capable of reason.

Thus, the metaphor of the uncles and aunts works. And unlike the father, God has no excuse.

Punishing me would be unjust under 1, 2, or 3.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 11:18 AM

It's amazing what people will call "metaphor" as soon as they realize they don't agree with it.

I'm fairly confident when Jesus used the word Gehenna it was as a metaphor. He liked using metaphors and hyperbole.

A lot of assumptions to make.

Not alot - but we both have to make some others how could we proceed. You assume God's unfair. I assume He's fair. You assume He's unujust. I assume He's Just.

And I'll agree - God and Hell as described and preached by many Preachers is abhorrent to me. But I don't believe them. I'm glad you don't either.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say, with these variables, and considering that all of our actions are ultimately the product of our material brains, that it's impossible to punish fairly.

We humans can only do our best. The God I believe in can see it all to clear and the punishment will be appropriate, fair, and have a purpose - ultimately to reconcile His Children back to Him.

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 11:20 AM

If you've read my posts in full, you'll see that I've responded to, more or less, the whole spectrum of goal posts.

:rolleyes:

Which also implies, still, that God was too impotent to explain it to us here in the material world.

But this is the Omnipotence vs. Free will issue, which only invalidates a God who claims perfect Omnipotence to the absolute logic bounds of the concept.

That sort of Omnipotence is not necessary for a God. When you are a toddler, your parents created you, they created the environment you live in, in most cases they know what's best for you much better than you do, the fact that they are imperfect does not make them any less the creators of you and the world you live in, and the providers of food, and the law givers.

You started off saying that a God cannot both punish and love, but this is based on a large number of underlying assumptions that are not necessary for a being to be considered a god.

An entity could
A) Have created the universe and the humans in it
B) Love some or all of those humans
C) Enact some sort of punishment on some of those humans after their death.

If you take as a given that a being could create the universe, and that some sort of soul remains after death to actually be punished, the there is nothing mutually exclusive between love and punishment until you start dragging in the ephemera from some specific religion.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 11:20 AM

But, as I'm an Atheist, and I am as capable of reason as you are, the assumption is either:

1) I do not agree with you because I am not actually capable of reason.

2) You have access to knowledge not available to me (and can make available to me), but either choose not to or can't be bothered.

3) You have access to knowledge not available to me, that can not convince me even though I am capable of reason.

Thus, the metaphor of the uncles and aunts works. And unlike the father, God has no excuse.

Punishing me would be unjust under 1, 2, or 3.

You're whole thesis on this point, if I understand you correctly, is that God never explained to us on how we should act and thus it's wrong to punish us. Is this correct?

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 11:20 AM

Not alot - but we both have to make some others how could we proceed. You assume God's unfair. I assume He's fair. You assume He's unujust. I assume He's Just.I assume based on the availability of evidence, not in spite of it. (In this case, "evidence" is dependent on what you get out of the bible).

And I'll agree - God and Hell as described and preached by many Preachers is abhorrent to me. But I don't believe them. I'm glad you don't either.Okay, so kind of afterlife do you believe in, then?

We humans can only do our best. The God I believe in can see it all to clear and the punishment will be appropriate, fair, and have a purpose - ultimately to reconcile His Children back to Him.

But if the rationale cannot be made in the world of reason and logic, then why must one assume that he is truly reasonable?

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 11:22 AM

:rolleyes:I'll just take that as a sign you didn't read my posts after all.

No reason to continue, then.

Tip: Look at my metaphor of the barn.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 11:26 AM

Okay, so kind of afterlife do you believe in, then?

Afterlife? I don't have clue. I hope it's like the happiest moments of my life, but happier. :)

I think you meant what kind of punishment I believe. Is that correct?

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 11:31 AM

I'll just take that as a sign you didn't read my posts after all.

No reason to continue, then.

Tip: Look at my metaphor of the barn.

The rolling eyes were because you didn't hit the full range of goalposts, and it would be a ridiculous endeavor to quote and respond to your 3 pages worth of posts to show that you didn't.

Your barn metaphor is terrible and shows that you've never had children, especially not teenagers.

Children can think of a million things to do wrong that you never specifically warned them not to do. What, you never told your nine year old kid specifically that he couldn't fill all the pillowcases with jelly? Well then no punishment, right?

You can't possibly notify your children of every possible wrong they could do, but it's perfectly reasonable to punish them for not using sense.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:19 PM

Afterlife? I don't have clue. I hope it's like the happiest moments of my life, but happier. :)

I think you meant what kind of punishment I believe. Is that correct?

If you don't believe in any kind of punishment in the afterlife, then it isn't relevant, after all. :)

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 12:33 PM

Ah yes, the whole "You don't have it, so you can't know" bullspit. :rolleyes:

Exactly the opposite, "You don't know, so I assume you don't have it"

So you don't tell him why what he did was wrong, you just lash out without warning.

WONDERFUL father, you must be.

What the hell are you talking about.
If you come home, and your kid who's old enough to know better has, let's say thrown a bowling ball through the kitchen window, how is grounding him "lashing out without warning"? Do I need to tell a 12 year old ahead of time to NOT throw a bowling ball through a window for grounding to be appropriate?

Really?

Seriously, answer this question. If your 12 year old throws a bowling ball through the kitchen window, even though you never told him ahead of time not to throw bowling balls through kitchen windows, is grounding him proof that you can't possibly love him?

Your argument was far more terrible than you think my metaphor was, so I'm going to ignore your argument as you ignored my metaphor.

That's an odd thing to say when I just responded to your metaphor:boggled:

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:38 PM

What the hell are you talking about.I'm making it applicable to the way religion works.

If you come home, and your kid who's old enough to know better has, let's say thrown a bowling ball through the kitchen window.So name me one sin that I'm supposed to automatically "know" will be objectively wrong to the universe?

Seriously, answer this question. If your 12 year old throws a bowling ball through the kitchen window, even though you never told him ahead of time not to throw bowling balls through kitchen windows, proof that you can't possibly love him?If I waited several years to punish him in the afterlife, without ever once correcting him throughout his life in any overt way? Yes.

Next question?

That's an odd thing to say when I just responded to your metaphor:boggled:

Right after you said you were deliberately ignoring all the other points I've made in my three posts.

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 12:48 PM

I'm making it applicable to the way religion works.

You're making it applicable to the way certain factions of certain religions work.

So name me one sin that I'm supposed to automatically "know" will be objectively wrong to the universe?

You don't know when you've done something wrong? You really have no moral compass?

In the case of the kid and the bowling ball, it doesn't matter if he knew, it mattered that he should know.

If I waited several years to punish him in the afterlife, without ever once correcting him throughout his life in any overt way? Yes.

You've never heard the phrase, wait till you father get's home? If you accept an eternal soul, the paltry amount of time a human actually lives doesn't amount to much waiting.

Right after you said you were deliberately ignoring all the other points I've made in my three posts.
I didn't say I was ignoring them, I said I wouldn't respond individually to 3 pages of posts to show what wasn't in them, that would be like responding to every page of the bible to prove there isn't a purple giraffe in there.

I read them, and they didn't cover what you stated they did.

shayes666

6th May 2009, 12:50 PM

I think Slayer says it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hf-KJYE7zs

Ahh, the soothing dilucid sounds of Slayer.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 12:52 PM

You don't know when you've done something wrong? You really have no moral compass?Some people don't. Have you heard of "sociopathy"? "Psychopathy"?

You think people choose to be that way? Because according to your argument, they'd be punished just like anyone else.

And very few people do something thinking what they're doing is 100% wrong; they usually justify it. Justifications have been used throughout time, and can demonstrably, empirically be shown to be a part of the human thinking process (or else you believe that only recently have humans developed this).

If a just god actually cared, he would factor that, just like a father should factor that he shouldn't strike a toddler because he dropped a glass of milk.

In the case of the kid and the bowling ball, it doesn't matter if he knew, it mattered that he should know.If he's dead, and punished for it several decades later, seems a little late to me.

You've never heard the phrase, wait till you father get's home? If you accept an eternal soul, the paltry amount of time a human actually lives doesn't amount to much waiting.And this is where the analogy falls apart, because it still makes no sense, especially when you compare the material with the spiritual. When the mother says "Just wait until your father gets home", she's still instilling fear into the child. This analogy breaks down because there is "Just wait until you die, mortal!" It's "listen to a bunch of random preachers tell you what you need to do to not avoid punishment in the future, blah blah blah, and figure it out for yourself". Furthermore, the mother does this because she is unwilling to punish the child herself (or wants the father to be seen as the authoritarian figure).

Here's a question: If someone loses all of their memories, do they become a different person?

If someone loses their memories, should they be punished for things they did that they don't recall doing? Not talking logic that a court of law would use, but someone who was really thinking about whether they wanted to be just or "teach the person a lesson".

If memories are obviously keyed in with a physical part of the brain, then why would one be punished if they died after having Alzheimer's? And if something like Alzheimer's could destroy your memory, then by that logic, death of the body would cause the same thing.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 01:06 PM

By the way:

or you can be someone who chooses to BE THE miracle like Hunter "Patch" Adams and be someone who improves people's lives.

I find it amusing that someone would leap into a discussion on the James Randi Educational Foundation to hero-worship someone that pushes such "treatments" as homeopathy and acupuncture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_adams

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=5134

Nice to see that he has such a core understanding of mental illness!

Adams caught the attention of Scott Rodgers, M.D., assistant dean of Students, when he labeled depression as a “selfish act” and spoke against the use of psychotropic medications as treatment.

“To me depression is a symptom of a disease called loneliness,” Adams said. “You cannot be depressed and hold someone you love in your mind at the same time — it is impossible.”

Yeah, that's right. Chronic Depression? Bipolar disorder? Pshaw!

Ferguson

6th May 2009, 01:07 PM

You're making it applicable to the way certain factions of certain religions work.

You don't know when you've done something wrong? You really have no moral compass?

In the case of the kid and the bowling ball, it doesn't matter if he knew, it mattered that he should know.

I don't see how this refutes Lonewulf's metaphor...
"it applicable to the way certain factions of certain religions work."
Of course if we're talking about hell, we are talking about certain factions of certain religions, those that believe in hell.

And yes, a few things included as sin in the bible are objectively immoral, but if some one who has never read the bible... say... eats shellfish, is eternal burning torture really a fair punishment for doing something _seemingly innocuous_ like picking up sticks on Sunday or going into your father's barn?

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 01:11 PM

Define "objectively immoral"?

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 01:27 PM

I don't see how this refutes Lonewulf's metaphor...
"it applicable to the way certain factions of certain religions work."
Of course if we're talking about hell, we are talking about certain factions of certain religions, those that believe in hell.

But his OP is based on the notion that afterlife punishment and a loving god are mutually exclusive. His points only support that specific afterlife punishments as viewed by some sects of Christianity are incompatible with a loving god. Many groups believe in hell and other afterlife punishments, but not in the way that Lonewulf is addressing them.

It's sort of like saying, an ice cream shop can't have chocolate sprinkles because the shop down the street doesn't. That only applies to the shop down the street and not to ice cream shops all over the world, or all possible ice cream shops.

Ferguson

6th May 2009, 01:27 PM

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 01:28 PM

But his OP is based on the notion that afterlife punishment and a loving god are mutually exclusive. His points only support that specific afterlife punishments as viewed by some sects of Christianity are incompatible with a loving god. Many groups believe in hell and other afterlife punishments, but not in the way that Lonewulf is addressing them.

It's sort of like saying, an ice cream shop can't have chocolate sprinkles because the shop down the street doesn't. That only applies to the shop down the street and not to ice cream shops all over the world, or all possible ice cream shops.

Show me a single hell that a loving god could enact on the people.

Well, I guess if we're being semantically careful nothing is 'objectively' immoral in that a subject must be involved. But what I mean is things which cause deliberate harm, things that non-sociopathic human beings find disgusting based on genetics... battering of children, murder, theft, etc.
My point is that he was equating "entering a barn" with "throwing a bowling ball through a window" which to me is equating "eating shellfish" with "murder." One is innocent, the other deliberately destructive. This, seems to me, is ignoring the spirit of the metaphor - that the child is not doing something immoral, but receives drastic punishment.

Ah, good point there. Thanks.

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 01:32 PM

Some people don't. Have you heard of "sociopathy"? "Psychopathy"?

If someone loses their memories, should they be punished for things they did that they don't recall doing? Not talking logic that a court of law would use, but someone who was really thinking about whether they wanted to be just or "teach the person a lesson".

If memories are obviously keyed in with a physical part of the brain, then why would one be punished if they died after having Alzheimer's? And if something like Alzheimer's could destroy your memory, then by that logic, death of the body would cause the same thing.

These objections seem to be based on the assumption that a god who gave punishments wouldn't take exceptions and specific circumstances into account. What an odd way to think of an omniscient being.

Why is waiting until the end of a mortal life too late if you believe in an immortal soul? Especially in the traditions where hell is a limited time thing, out of eternity, the wait for punishment and it's duration are both paltry.

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 01:34 PM

These objections seem to be based on the assumption that a god who gave punishments wouldn't take exceptions and specific circumstances into account. What an odd way to think of an omniscient being.So he allows sociopaths and psychopaths a free pass, as well as the mentally ill, but anyone else with a physical brain doesn't get let off?

Why is waiting until the end of a mortal life too late if you believe in an immortal soul?
Because of how much of what we are is tied into our physical body and brain, like I continually stated.

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 01:36 PM

Well, I guess if we're being semantically careful nothing is 'objectively' immoral in that a subject must be involved. But what I mean is things which cause deliberate harm, things that non-sociopathic human beings find disgusting based on genetics... battering of children, murder, theft, etc.
My point is that he was equating "entering a barn" with "throwing a bowling ball through a window" which to me is equating "eating shellfish" with "murder." One is innocent, the other deliberately destructive. This, seems to me, is ignoring the spirit of the metaphor - that the child is not doing something immoral, but receives drastic punishment.

But that's where the barn metaphor fails.
It assumes that a god is punishing the innocent, but nothing about the idea of punishment after life requires that. In fact, many religions consider that antithetical to the nature of god. You can't imagine a hell where only the deliberately destructive are sent?

Ferguson

6th May 2009, 01:36 PM

Lonewulf

6th May 2009, 01:38 PM

If the God is very knowing, then that God should also know how much lesser our own intellect is, and if He puts His ideas outside the reach of reason, then how are we not innocent?

See the Uncles and Aunts metaphor, which I notice you've kept ignoring continuously throughout this thread.

Ferguson

6th May 2009, 01:45 PM

You can't imagine a hell where only the deliberately destructive are sent?
I can imagine it as a hypothetical, but only because of the wiggle-room words like 'hell' (and 'God') enjoy. Have I ever come across a religion that includes such a 'destructives-only' hell while meaningfully explaining why God allowed those people to be destructive and why hell would be the solution as opposed to just 'fixing' them outright (if he has any potency as a god)? No.

Cavemonster

6th May 2009, 01:46 PM

So he allows sociopaths and psychopaths a free pass, as well as the mentally ill, but anyone else with a physical brain doesn't get let off?

Like I've said before, why do you view it as "getting a free pass"?
One Jewish tradition holds that for impure souls, hell is necessary to allow them to experience and enjoy heaven.

You view it as punishment for pure retribution purposes, but many traditions see hell as rehabilitation, some see it as merely those souls which are incapable of being in the presence of God being segregated.

If we can accept for the purposes of argument that god created humans, why is it impossible to imagine a model in which those who are punished end up the better for it, or at the least for the better of the mass of humanity.

When kids are punished, they often whine about which one of them got let off, whether or not it's fair etc. What most of them miss is that the punishments are there to help them become better people. The idea of a kid being spared a punishment as a benefit and the one punished as a victim is not an accurate model if the punishments are given according to a thoughtful and effective parenting plan.

A Christian Sceptic

6th May 2009, 02:11 PM

Lonewulf - why do you think if God existed he'd be as you think he must be (an abusive parent) and not like the many other ideas about him like Cavemonster has pointed out?

It sounds like you're arguing against some highly specific concept of God (apparently a Fundamentalist Christian concept).

Why do you prefer an abusive parent concept of God?

quarky

7th May 2009, 07:04 PM

Which Atheists are those and based on what do you affirm that they "hate" God? Most Atheists do not hate that which they do not consider to exist in the first place

Allow me to catch up here.

Some atheists get there through a dissapointment: "I was a good Christian until God decided to take our baby."
or,

"I can't believe in a loving God that would kill our baby".

So, to some extent, and in some cases, Atheism begins with a disgust of God, rather than an out-right logical rejection.
I'm in favor of the rejection of God, btw, but not the logic of rejecting the concept bcause it tells lies.

Some people stopped believing in Bill Clinton after the stain on the blue dress hit the press. Yet, they didn't believe that Bill Clinton didn't exist.

theprestige

7th May 2009, 07:30 PM

I use the same logic as I would, in saying that a father that abuses his children if they don't make a decision that would make them miserable, doesn't love his children.
And if they do make a decision that makes them miserable, and are miserable as a result, would you say their misery is a consequence of their father abusing them, or a consequence of their own decision?

What if they make a decision that makes one of their siblings miserable? Is their sibling's misery is a consequence of their father abusing them, or a consequence of their brother's decision?

There's no good logical argument against this. The only way to sidestep it is to either refuse to believe that God exists, or refuse to believe in any kind of divine-based punishment in the afterlife.
How about this: I refuse to believe in any kind of divine-based punishment in the afterlife. Whatever misery goes on in the afterlife is simply the result of your own decisions, freely and independently of any happiness your father might have wished you to choose for yourself (if you'll forgive me from carrying on with your metaphor).

Or is that still too much of a side-step for you?

Lithrael

7th May 2009, 07:50 PM

Cavemonster

8th May 2009, 12:15 AM

@ Cavemonster:

Well you can't think of every thing a kid might do wrong in order to have a rule against it of course. But I should hope you can think of entire classes of action that could cover most of the things the kid might do. Jelly in pillowcases, "don't make a mess, especially not with food." Ball through window, "don't break things."

I can't buy the argument that it's impossible to use reason on a child. Sure they are likely to ignore it sometimes or try to twist logic in their favor after they do something bad which they found irresistible, as kids do, but it's still fully possible to reasonably explain broad rules to them and let them know they'll be on the hook for ignoring them.

And by extension with the metaphor I can't buy that it's impossible for a god to use reason on a human. And I quite like Lonewulf's barn metaphor.

No, it isn't theoretically impossible to tell your child all the basic categories of wrong, but neither is it the mark of a terrible parent for punishing a child who does something wrong but was not warned not to.

The key is in how you view punishment. From the view of a good parent, punishment isn't an emotional reaction, and fairness or whether the child "deserves" it doesn't enter into the equation. Punishment is an action that is short-term unpleasant for the child, but hopefully helps to prevent long-term, much more unpleasant consequences.

Here's an example from my life. I loved my cat Murray (no longer with us). One day, he got terrible diarea, and had poop all over his very furry butt.

So, I set to work with scissors and a sponge to cut and wash away the poopy fur. It was an incredibly unpleasant experience for us both. In fact, he later peed on my hat to get back at me.

Now, was the poop on the butt his fault? It could have been something he ate somewhere that he was not supposed to, it could've just been a bug he caught, it might even have been my fault, maybe I overfed him or something. The issue of whether he deserved it or not is nonsensical. If I had spared him the terrible experience, he would have walked around with feces on him, getting himself and everyone in the house sick.

That's the nature of punishment to a good parent, it isn't a matter of whether the punishment is fair or deserved or forewarned. If you have the knowledge that putting your child through a minor unpleasantness now will spare them far worse later, that is the expression of love. Talking about fairness in punishment, or assuming that any punishment is equivalent to taking out your anger with a belt is missing the point entirely.

Is it impossible for a god to explain the afterlife ahead of time? Is it impossible for me to explain to my cat why he has to sit still while I'm cleaning his butt? It isn't mutually exclusive for an entity to create the universe, have the final say in our afterlife, and still be unable to communicate it's will directly to humans. Omnipotence, to the full logical extent of the word, is not definitional for a god. In fact, up until the Abrahamic tradition, all gods were described as clearly non-omnipotent, with unfullfilled wants, petty squabbles, confusion and the lot. It's only in a few of the most popular interpretations of Abrahamic tradition that a God is viewed as omnipotent and omniscient.

Lonewulf

8th May 2009, 04:38 AM

It's interesting for a creator to have the ability to create the universe, but he can't leave a very very simple message that any other human being could leave around.

Cavemonster

8th May 2009, 05:15 AM

It's interesting for a creator to have the ability to create the universe, but he can't leave a very very simple message that any other human being could leave around.

It's true, that runs counter-intuitive to our notions of power.

Yet, I can have ultimate power over the life and death of an ant farm, be the source of food and water, be able to cause earthquakes, or, if I've educated myself even have the power to make the colony prosper and thrive, and wish them success, but I can never make my feelings known to an ant.

In fact, clear interspecies communication isn't very common at all. The greater the differential in complexity between species, the less the simpler species is even aware that the larger one is there. I may be able to give a dog orders in a very crude way, but a flat worm can't differentiate my communication from the rest of it's environment.

But again, just because there is nothing logically contradictory in the base idea of a god is no reason to believe in one, you'd need some evidence too, of which there is none.

Cainkane1

8th May 2009, 06:21 AM

God shows his lack of affection for humans (and animals) by allowing unforseen horrors to happen. Wars, disease, starvation, various unprevoked cruelties by our fellow men are just a few examples.

Cavemonster

8th May 2009, 06:32 AM

God shows his lack of affection for humans (and animals) by allowing unforseen horrors to happen. Wars, disease, starvation, various unprevoked cruelties by our fellow men are just a few examples.

That's the problem of evil, and it only really arises in a god model that is fully Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. A god with limited power, limited knowledge or conditional (even irrational) love could easily care for at least some beings, if not all, and still be unable to protect them from the worst things in the world. And God's with all three omnis are a relatively new development. In Greek and Egyptian mythology, people and other gods are always hiding from gods. You can't hide from someone who knows and can do all. Polytheistic gods (And even the Abrahamic God) often play favorites with groups of humans, loving and protecting theses ones, while ordering the slaughter of those.

The idea that a god is truly omnibenevolent is a fairly Christian idea. Most gods in history loved a few groups of people, and were even downright hostile to others. But that doesn't translate to a god that loves no one, just a god who loves selectively.

Lithrael

8th May 2009, 11:10 AM

OK, there's definitely some disconnect here between what I think I'm arguing and what you seem to be arguing.

For starters I can't see what your idea of punishment actually is, since you say it's good practice to punish unfairly/fairness doesn't enter into it. That makes no sense to me. The entire point of punishment is to reinforce rules - if there is no rule involved then how can punishment be anything but arbitrary? And how can arbitrary punishment ever be useful? How can anyone learn from that?

Even if a child does do something bad that it couldn't have known beforehand was bad - how does it help to punish them instead of simply reprimanding them and letting them know this is an act that will merit punishment if done again? I can't think of an example where this would be helpful.

The issue of whether he deserved it or not is nonsensical. If I had spared him the terrible experience, he would have walked around with feces on him, getting himself and everyone in the house sick.

That's the nature of punishment to a good parent, it isn't a matter of whether the punishment is fair or deserved or forewarned. If you have the knowledge that putting your child through a minor unpleasantness now will spare them far worse later, that is the expression of love. Talking about fairness in punishment, or assuming that any punishment is equivalent to taking out your anger with a belt is missing the point entirely.

But what you describe with the cat is not punishment. The mere fact an experience is unpleasant or unwanted, even if it is a consequence of a chosen action, does not make it punishment.

Washing a dirty cat is not punishment. Swatting a cat's butt when he's chewing on the houseplant is punishment. The cat can learn nothing from the first - he's not even supposed to. The cat can learn something from the second. (then he will ignore it ;)) Even my friend's idiot cat, who likes to crap on the carpet, knows he'll get punished for it. He squats and then runs and hides.

Yes, it is possible for something to be perceived as punishment even though it is not, but to me that is a different issue. To extend that to a metaphor explaining either the problem of evil or the dissonance of a loving god that sends people to hell forever... Well I can maybe buy that natural disasters are just things that need to happen and are not punishment (though some loud evangelists have characterized them as punishment), but I fail to see how anyone can twist the entire traditional idea and presentation of hell to the point it's not actually punishment.

To reiterate, the ENTIRE idea I'm taking issue with is the fundie view of a God hellbent on punishing, in the sense of 'don't do that or I'll smite you', anyone who isn't in the right club doing the right things, and the idea that the brimstone God they describe behaving this way is also perfect & loving. This God doesn't get the 'cannot communicate, sorry' caveat; this God's fans claim to be in communication with their God all the time.

It isn't mutually exclusive for an entity to create the universe, have the final say in our afterlife, and still be unable to communicate it's will directly to humans.

That's fine. In which case, though, that entity has no justification for punishing anyone for breaking rules they had no way to even infer. Again I do not call natural consequences punishment. Punishment very specifically is an intentionally imposed penalty for wrongdoing.

Cavemonster

8th May 2009, 11:25 AM

To reiterate, the ENTIRE idea I'm taking issue with is the fundie view of a God hellbent on punishing, in the sense of 'don't do that or I'll smite you', anyone who isn't in the right club doing the right things, and the idea that the brimstone God they describe behaving this way is also perfect & loving. This God doesn't get the 'cannot communicate, sorry' caveat; this God's fans claim to be in communication with their God all the time.

I think that's where the disconnect comes in, the OP's attempting to make the point for all possible gods who subject humans to afterlife unpleasantness based on behavior. If we were talking about the fundamentalist Christian vision of God, the rules and punishments they believe in, then yes, it would be very difficult to imagine that god as loving. But there are other gods and other hells in practice today in other religions, other gods and hells that are no longer believed in, and personal beliefs that aren't bounded by any religion.

In the Jewish Mystical tradition, you stay in hell for less than 11 months, thinking about what you did wrong and purifying yourself before you're admitted to heaven. In some Japanese traditions, you may be reborn into a hell-ish world of hungry ghosts in your next life, but if you learn and behave better, you're reborn into a better world the next time around.

I feel that purely logic based cases can be made against specific notions of a god either existing, or being "good". But almost always when someone tries a purely logical stance on all possible gods, they make assumptions based on the dominant religion they're critical of.

It is lack of evidence that makes a belief in any god illogical, I've never seen another approach that really held up.